A new poll just came out showing Trump leading Clinton by two points in Iowa. This is not unusual--state level polls of swing states have consistently shown a competitive race. However national polls are showing a fairly large Clinton lead.

My first theory on this was that Trumps problems with extremely conservative, Ted Cruzesque Republicans in non competitive states is driving down his numbers. This could be the case and probably is to some extent. But I also remember from last year, even before Trump, this difference existed. Clinton would easily trounce most Republicans in national polls, but in polls of individual swing states the race would be competitive.

What could cause this discrepancy and which set of polling is right?

What if they're both right, and Trump has a good chance of winning the election while losing the popular vote by a decent margin?

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

It happened again. Polls came out today showing Trump up 3 in Florida, 1 in Pennsylvania, and tied in Ohio...about in line with a tied race. Meanwhile a national poll came out showing Clinton ahead by 3. Both sets of polls are from credible and respectable polling outlets.

What gives? Like I said earlier, this isn't a new phenomenon. Either Clinton is surprisingly popular somewhere (but where?) or one type of polling has some serious flaws

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 7/13/2016 1:03:36 PM, thett3 wrote:It happened again. Polls came out today showing Trump up 3 in Florida, 1 in Pennsylvania, and tied in Ohio...about in line with a tied race. Meanwhile a national poll came out showing Clinton ahead by 3. Both sets of polls are from credible and respectable polling outlets.

What gives? Like I said earlier, this isn't a new phenomenon. Either Clinton is surprisingly popular somewhere (but where?) or one type of polling has some serious flaws

She is ahead where people live. Populous states.

Yea, the swing states are going to be close. What would you expect them to be? How would they be "swing" without being competitive?

At 7/12/2016 5:36:41 PM, thett3 wrote:A new poll just came out showing Trump leading Clinton by two points in Iowa. This is not unusual--state level polls of swing states have consistently shown a competitive race. However national polls are showing a fairly large Clinton lead.

My first theory on this was that Trumps problems with extremely conservative, Ted Cruzesque Republicans in non competitive states is driving down his numbers. This could be the case and probably is to some extent. But I also remember from last year, even before Trump, this difference existed. Clinton would easily trounce most Republicans in national polls, but in polls of individual swing states the race would be competitive.

What could cause this discrepancy and which set of polling is right?

What if they're both right, and Trump has a good chance of winning the election while losing the popular vote by a decent margin?

They're both right. He's going to lose in uber-liberal states by much larger margins, and win in deep red by lesser margins. It leaves a lot of room for him to sweep the Rust Belt and still be majorly down in the popular vote - especially when factoring Johnson and Stein.

At 7/12/2016 5:36:41 PM, thett3 wrote:A new poll just came out showing Trump leading Clinton by two points in Iowa. This is not unusual--state level polls of swing states have consistently shown a competitive race. However national polls are showing a fairly large Clinton lead.

My first theory on this was that Trumps problems with extremely conservative, Ted Cruzesque Republicans in non competitive states is driving down his numbers. This could be the case and probably is to some extent. But I also remember from last year, even before Trump, this difference existed. Clinton would easily trounce most Republicans in national polls, but in polls of individual swing states the race would be competitive.

What could cause this discrepancy and which set of polling is right?

What if they're both right, and Trump has a good chance of winning the election while losing the popular vote by a decent margin?

They're both right. He's going to lose in uber-liberal states by much larger margins, and win in deep red by lesser margins. It leaves a lot of room for him to sweep the Rust Belt and still be majorly down in the popular vote - especially when factoring Johnson and Stein.